9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (3) TMI 219X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inafter referred to as Act). The appellant has also obtained loan licence to market certain medicines after getting them manufactured from two other units named M/s. Impha Lab (hereinafter called Impha ) and M/s. Dicks Lab (hereinafter called Dicks ) which are Private Limited Companies duly licensed for the manufacture of and to market certain medicines. M/s. M.K. Enterprises (hereinafter called M.K.) a registered partnership firm is also so licensed. Dicks and M.K. did not own any factory to manufacture medicines. The Appellant did not have manufacturing facilities to manufacture certain drugs. So, it applied and obtained permission to market these medicines after getting them manufactured by Impha . As Dicks and M.K. did not ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in and also of provisions of Notification No. 83/83 on the ground that the appellant : (i) was directly clearing medicine from the premises of Impha and was not including value of such clearances in its own clearance and thereby was evading payment of duty and (ii) was recovering amount of duty from Dicks and M.K. but the appellant was not paying such duty to the Govt. So the appellant was asked to Show Cause against (1) imposition of penalty under Rules 9(2) and 173Q and (2) recovery of duty under Rule 9(2) amounting to Rs. 24,644.47 payment of which was allegedly evaded by the appellant. On adjudication, learned Collector ordered that value of clearances of goods manufactured and cleared by the Impha from their factory o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Impha had manufactured and cleared such medicines on behalf of the appellant. Similarly Dicks and M.K. did not have manufacturing facility and so those medicines were manufactured by the appellant on behalf of Dicks and M.K. on their respective loan licences. It is not in dispute that all these units are independent of each other and that relations between them were on the basis of principal to principal. The appellant had declared these facts of their manufacturing medicines on behalf of Dicks and M.K. on their loan licences in its classification lists which are on record. Similarly Impha had declared in its classification lists which are on record that it was manufacturing medicines on behalf of the appellant on appellant s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld as under : Under Notification No. 176/77 it is not manufacture by or on behalf that is the exempting determinant but clearance by or on behalf of . Manufacture is one thing and clearance another. Goods can be manufactured on behalf of another, they can never be cleared on behalf of another. The goods made on behalf of the appellants were not cleared on their behalf.- they were simply cleared by the 4 units. There is no such thing as clearance on behalf , there is only clearance. There is no law to support the pronouncement that the utencils were cleared on behalf of appellants. They were cleared by the manufacturing unit and set to their owners M/s. Shakti Udyog. Therefore, clearances cannot be taken under M/s. Shakti Udyog accoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that Impha had duly shown all these clearances in its returns and had paid duty or had obtained exemption as per proper provisions of the Act and relevant notifications. 8. On the second issue, it is an admitted position that the appellant did collect excise duty from Dicks and M.K. but as its clearances during the relevant period did not exceed exemption limit under provisions of relevant Notifications No. 80/80 and 83/83, it did not pay duty to the Government. So the learned Collector in his impugned order has held that the amounts of such duty should be added to the value of clearances of the appellant during the relevant period. 9. This issue is settled by this Tribunal in Hubli Chemical Works v. Collector of Central Excise, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant is concerned, this fact could not be known to the Department and obviously it was known only when Prevenive Officers carried out check on the records of the appellant. So, for that purpose longer period of limitation was properly invoked by the Department. So notice cannot be termed as time-barred as far as that purpose is concerned. 11. In view of above discussion we pass following final order :- (i) The appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order, as far as demanding payment of duty based on clearances by Impha laboratory on behalf of the appellant is concerned, is set aside. (ii) As far as demand of duty based upon addition of amounts of excise duty collected by the appellant from Dicks M.K. to the clearance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
